Holocaust-era Insurance Claims: Federal Court Decisions and State Statutes and Federal Legislative Proposals (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (21 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
June 21, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RL32448 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Douglas Reid Weimer and Janice E. Rubin, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, the United States Supreme Court
struck down
California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA), finding that it impermissibly
interfered with the President's conduct of foreign affairs. The challenged statute required insurance
companies wishing to do business in California to disclose specified information concerning their
policy-writing activities in Europe during the Holocaust era, and those of their related, European
insurance companies; it was enacted by the state, one of many state statutes enacted to expedite the
handling of the Holocaust-era insurance claims, in an attempt to address perceived (and in many
cases, documented) injustices in the (non)payment of certain Holocaust-era insurance claims. All
were enacted about the same time as the conclusion of several international agreements that (1)
addressed problems involved in the settlement of Holocaust-era insurance claims and (2) created
mechanisms for resolving those claims. These state laws, which vary greatly in their scope and
coverage, are summarized in an Appendix to this report.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, there had been a split between two U.S. Courts of Appeals
in which state Holocaust-related insurance statutes had been litigated. The Ninth Circuit, whose
decision was reversed in Garamendi, had upheld the California statute's disclosure
provisions; the
Eleventh Circuit had earlier struck down a similar Florida statute, reasoning that the requirement that
U.S. insurance companies disclose information about the activities of their German affiliates violated
the Due Process rights of the U.S. companies. The status of similar provisions in other states'
insurance statutes is, as the result of the Garamendi decision, in question; either in
anticipation of,
or as a result of, the Court's 5-4 decision, several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the
108th Congress to clarify that the state laws are permissible. The legislation is intended to (1)
expedite the settlement of Holocaust-era insurance claims and/or (2) provide greater structure and
uniformity in the claims settlement process.
This report will discuss in detail the Supreme Court case and the lower court decisions that
preceded it, providing only so much information on the background and history of the issue as is
necessary to an appreciation of the litigation. For further historical information is presented in detail,
see CRS Report RL30262 and CRS Report RL30396. Pertinent, pending congressional measures
are summarized. As noted above, an appendix to this report provides, in chart form, summaries of
currently existing state laws, including those containing provisions that are similar or identical to
those in HVIRA that were struck down.
This report will be updated upon further congressional action.
